With respect, your first post on this thread pointed at window scaling issues, and hinted at the default (whose default?) window size of 64K being the problem.

I've pointed out (repeatedly) that firstly, the window size concerned here defaults to 128k (ie, ~6mbit/sec), and secondly, that both ends correctly support TCP window scaling. So, no, your first post is not actually all that helpful.

sbiddle: Your connection is delivering 15Mbps, and will happily do 15Mbps UDP or using multiple TCP connections. I don't see how it's not performing.

1. The server and every step of the way back to my end point have the capacity to deliver 15mbit/sec.

2. We assume that at every step of the way, no shaping, dropping, etc, is occurring. Shaping = dropping for reasons other than congestion, and dropping otherwise is the result of congestion, which by (1), doesn't occur

3. Consequence of 1 & 2, dropping, if it is occurring, is only occurring due to shaping.

freitasm: I sent a PM to you, but since you are making this public, your question and statement "Do you perhaps work for Telstra too? (Why else are you defending them, when clearly they are not delivering here?)" implies it.

?

Difference of opinion there. IANAL, however, so in avoidance of risking violating that other rule, I'll not argue with you.

sbiddle: No I don't work for Telstra, however I do have a reasonable understanding of why this issue occurs, which is presumably no different today as to what it was ~11 years ago when TCL moved to a DOCSIS platform. My first post on this thread says a lot.

I'm not going to post anything and haven't said anything because it's TCL's job to respond to their customers. If they choose not to it reflects badly on them.

Your connection is delivering 15Mbps, and will happily do 15Mbps UDP or using multiple TCP connections. I don't see how it's not performing.

Steve,

jnawk says he can get ~10mbps through a UDP connection to the same server. I can see how DOCSIS would limit packet arrival times (being ATM), but I don't see how it can affect TCP without affecting UDP as well?

Probably the best advice anyone has given me. I did actually put a feeler out there about one potential alternative, and only got the Telecom dude fearing I was trolling. (I'm not)

I was fearing you were trolling about WorldNet in particular potentially giving better performance that TCL Cable... That's all... TCL cable generally has a very good reputation for network performance.

Although to be honest I think the expectation you have for broadband performance is quite extreme, and most ISPs will fall short, if not all of them, at one time or another.

Cheers - N

(ps, this is completely my personal opinion and in no way should be construed as an official or unofficial Telecom view)

Shaping = dropping for reasons other than congestion, and dropping otherwise is the result of congestion, which by (1), doesn't occur

[snip]

What you've done here is choose a definition for shaping that I don't believe is widely accepted in the context of residential broadband providers - and certainly isn't what's widely understood in that context.

When you later in the list say TCL are swearing black and blue they aren't shaping, I would assume they are using their own definition (which they may or may not have written down - the person you have assurances from may in fact be using what to him/her is a good common sense definition)

I do think you're going to have to vote with your wallet on this one unfortunately... However in your position my biggest concern would be that you simply may not be able to find any provider prepared to accept responsibilty for the end to end network performance on a residential plan when part of the path is outside their own network.

Shaping = dropping for reasons other than congestion, and dropping otherwise is the result of congestion, which by (1), doesn't occur

[snip]

What you've done here is choose a definition for shaping that I don't believe is widely accepted in the context of residential broadband providers - and certainly isn't what's widely understood in that context.

When you later in the list say TCL are swearing black and blue they aren't shaping, I would assume they are using their own definition (which they may or may not have written down - the person you have assurances from may in fact be using what to him/her is a good common sense definition)

I do think you're going to have to vote with your wallet on this one unfortunately... However in your position my biggest concern would be that you simply may not be able to find any provider prepared to accept responsibilty for the end to end network performance on a residential plan when part of the path is outside their own network.

Cheers - N

(ps. Again, ENTIRELY personal opinion)

If you don't like my definition of shaping, please kindly substitute a more appropriate one. I'm not trying to put any spin on here.

Also, I generally agree with you about the performance of TCL cable, in the general case. For years and years I've been with them, and they've always put everything else to shame. But this is different. The problem appears to be with the immediate upstream (reach), and from what I can tell, they have their fingers in that pie good and proper. (Again, happy to be wrong).

Also, why is XNet, a little tin-pot ISP able to put them to shame? (ie, a TCP session with XNet goes at whatever speed the line can deliver - in this example about 10mbit/sec). If the upstream is the cause, then WorldNet should be able to manage the same feat - if that map that is floating around is correct, traces show the XNet connection is upstreamed by vocus, and the map confirms (or vice versa), and the map states WorldNet is upstreamed by vocus also. The only remaining issue is have WorldNet brought enough bandwidth.

Why I chose them? Well, my needs are reasonably specialised. (Don't want or need a POTS line, certainly not for $40 per month, but its not really about the $$ in that regard - I run Asterisk. Why? I like not having people being able to just dial straight through. My server presents a menu, which is only really navigable if you actually already know who you want to talk to). Traffic - always a big concern. 40GB a month is about the minimum I can get by on. And since I'm saving for more important concerns, 40GB a month is what I'll get (on Telstra anyway, where my next option is 60GB). The nuts and bolts of it is that Telstra's connection meets my needs best, but this kind of performance is unacceptable from any ISP and they are the only one I know that have this problem. Remember, this isn't just happening to me. I've given them details of at least one of their other customers also having *exactly* the same issues. They've even said they might contact him. Empty words so far.

FM tried a test last night. And we all know how fast his connection is. He reported 4mbit/sec. That is the same speed as me (he's probably rounded up, whereas I tend to go down. In any rate, I observe in between 3 and 4.) The Telstra dudes have done some tests - 90mbit/sec or so, over UDP, 3.5mbit/sec over TCP. What gives? I'm sure, Mr. Telecom (sorry, N isn't much to go on!) you'd be unhappy with that kind of imbalance - imagine instead of ADSL with rubbish speeds you had purchased VDSL. Still residential grade, mind you. VDSL is supposed to be able to do 55mbit/sec or so. Those are the numbers I've seen bandied around. Now imagine you get 3.5mbit/sec down that pipe. You'd be pretty pissed. Or, rather, I would be.

Credit where credit is due - Telstra haven't told me roundly and soundly to F--- off. They are actually looking into the problem. They do that much, and I think that is one of the key lessons in this whole exercise - they present as actually giving a crap, even if their helpdesk is impossible to talk to.

Where I put out there that perhaps they sell me 2mbit/sec, and charge me accordingly, well, I'd be happy with a cheaper plan that were slower, but 15mbit/sec is about as slow as it gets with Telstra. (Their piddly little connections don't count - no where near enough traffic). I'd even ramp the spend back up again and get a bit more traffic. In theory, everyone wins.

jnawk: File transfer over SSH connection from baird.net.nz. I get about 3mbit/connection, but can get my full 15mbit if I have enough connections going. He gets basically his whole connection worth of bandwidth down a single connection (something like 10mbit/sec).Both operating systems are openSUSE 11.4.

What SSH server and client are you using? OpenSSH by default has issues with window scaling due to statically defined buffers in the code. There is a high performance ssh patch available.

I'd be interested in seeing some non-ssh TCP transfers, as well as some tcptraceroutes using similar src/dst port combinations.

Edit: I'd also be fascinated to see whether a UDP transported tunnel between the two hosts masks or moves the problem.

This morning I tried a test file from the Geekzone server (Datacom Albany Orbit Drive Datacenter, Auckland) and got this (over FTP), which is a bit faster:

Now, I don't believe any ISP would guarantee end to end speeds, simply because there are plenty of things that could influence results. The OP obviously made his claim, and other people are trying to find the answer to the puzzle. But it will be a long journey, since not everything is absolutely known and under control.

Just remember to keep things civil and under control. There are watchers.

One other question for the OP: can you provide return traceroutes from the origin server to both the Xnet and TCL connections? So far (at least, as far as I saw) you've only provided client->server, and not server->client.

jnawk: File transfer over SSH connection from baird.net.nz.? I get about 3mbit/connection, but can get my full 15mbit if I have enough connections going.? He gets basically his whole connection worth of bandwidth down a single connection (something like 10mbit/sec).Both operating systems are openSUSE 11.4.?

What SSH server and client are you using? OpenSSH by default has issues with window scaling due to statically defined buffers in the code. There is a high performance ssh patch available.

I'd be interested in seeing some non-ssh TCP transfers, as well as some tcptraceroutes using similar src/dst port combinations.

Edit: I'd also be fascinated to see whether a UDP transported tunnel between the two hosts masks or moves the problem.

Both clients, my one and my friend's one (xnet connection) use the same version of everything.

Probably the best advice anyone has given me. I did actually put a feeler out there about one potential alternative, and only got the Telecom dude fearing I was trolling. (I'm not)

Regarding worldnet:

Worldnet have a well earned reputation as low cost over subscribed ISP with atrocious customer service. They primarily cater to overseas students in the Auckland CDB attending uni. Historically, English is not a strong point the company either.